Parking ticket from Meadowhall

[Walkley Dave]

That may be true, but there's no chance in hell they'd be able to prove loss to base their claim on, especially in a free car park where the person getting the ticket was already spending money in the establishment.

Also the charge will probably fall foul of being excessive or a penalty or something.

 

There's so many holes in the legal standing of the PPC's that it's not hard to completely wipe the floor with them in court - as so many have done before.

 

The POPLA people have agreed that the charge needs to be a pre-estimate of loss otherwise it is indeed a penalty.

 

If you get a parking charge ticket. speculative invoice or call it what you will except a fine of course and it goes to court - then you don't just rely on one defence - there are a number.

 

BUT - it has to get that far. A POPLA appeal is binding on the PPC and not on the motorist. I believe the current figure of successful appeals is around 60% and rising.

 

Once more people start realising that the parking charge ticket. speculative invoice or call it what you will except a fine - is not a fine then the more people will fight through POPLA.

 

I should say Moosey by the way that there is a lot of evidence that for whatever reason Parking Companies are reluctant to produce these contracts.

I suspect the reason is that they are free to issue tickets and there is a clause that provides a kickback to the company per ticket.

 

But as I say this is just guess.

[onewheeldave]

The POPLA people have agreed that the charge needs to be a pre-estimate of loss otherwise it is indeed a penalty.

 

If you get a parking charge ticket. speculative invoice or call it what you will except a fine of course and it goes to court - then you don't just rely on one defence - there are a number.

 

BUT - it has to get that far. A POPLA appeal is binding on the PPC and not on the motorist. I believe the current figure of successful appeals is around 60% and rising.

 

Once more people start realising that the parking charge ticket. speculative invoice or call it what you will except a fine - is not a fine then the more people will fight through POPLA.

 

I should say Moosey by the way that there is a lot of evidence that for whatever reason Parking Companies are reluctant to produce these contracts.

I suspect the reason is that they are free to issue tickets and there is a clause that provides a kickback to the company per ticket.

 

But as I say this is just guess.

 

To be honest, this POPLA thing sounds a bit dodgy.

 

The fact is that 'parking invoices' issued by private companies are not legally enforcable.

 

i.e. they are meaningless bits of paper which can be safely binned and ignored by any motorist receiving them (this has been publicly confirmed by, for example, 'Watchdog').

 

An appeal, either via the 'parking companies' appeals proceedure, or, by POPLAs is entirely unnecessary, as, there is nothing to pay in the first place.

 

And, a 60% 'success' rate for POPLA appeals, is insignificant compared to the 100% success rate of simply binning and ignoring the invoices.

[Walkley Dave]

To be honest, this POPLA thing sounds a bit dodgy.

 

The fact is that 'parking invoices' issued by private companies are not legally enforcable.

 

i.e. they are meaningless bits of paper which can be safely binned and ignored by any motorist receiving them (this has been publicly confirmed by, for example, 'Watchdog').

 

An appeal, either via the 'parking companies' appeals proceedure, or, by POPLAs is entirely unnecessary, as, there is nothing to pay in the first place.

 

And, a 60% 'success' rate for POPLA appeals, is insignificant compared to the 100% success rate of simply binning and ignoring the invoices.

 

That is not the point.

 

The PPC 's rarely issued court papers until recently. Now they are spraying them around like confetti at a wedding. It used to be easy to ignore letters from a debt collector, and even a solicitor because they rarely carried out their threats.

 

But you can't ignore a Small Claim from Northampton County Court, unless you are pretty stupid.

 

It costs £25.00 to issue a claim, and each one is for around £200.00. You work out the Maths.

 

My guess is they are making a bomb taking these to MCOL, because faced with genuine court papers most people would panic and pay. After all it is official!

 

True if you put in a genuine defence you will probably win (they just withdraw the claim and lose £25.00). But until they start losing a lot more than they win, they will continue in this vein.

 

Watchdog's advice is well out of date.

 

Winning at Popla is so much easier.

[Moosey]

I should say Moosey by the way that there is a lot of evidence that for whatever reason Parking Companies are reluctant to produce these contracts.

I suspect the reason is that they are free to issue tickets and there is a clause that provides a kickback to the company per ticket.

 

But as I say this is just guess.

 

I think you're very probably right!

 

Interesting point on the Court fees by the way that might be of interest.

 

There's been two recent changes to the law that relate to this.

 

Firstly, the small claims limit has gone up to £10,000. That's relevant as there are no legal costs in small claims, so there's no reason why they can't inflate their charges quite happily, and if someone ignores the papers and gets a default Judgment against them, it could potentially now be a lot more than it previously was. Not saying they're dishonest people, but, there was a risk in the past that if they got anywhere near the small claims limit, and they lost, they'd have to pay the Defendant's (the person parking) legal costs. Not so much of an issue now as they'll get no where near £10k.

 

The other is a thing called QOCS. Qualified one way costs shifting. If a Claimant fails, it's very unlikely they'll ever have to pay the Defendant's costs, so you can, in theory, issue as many claims as you like, free in the knowledge that it'll only cost you £25 as you say. Unless the claims are utterly frivolous, to the point that a Judge chucks them out before they get heard (these aren't that bad, just), then there's no risk to the parking company.

 

I think you'll see a lot more of this now. No risk litigation for the parking companies. A £25 court fee is easy to risk, particularly if you win on say 20% where people just ignore it.

[Penistone999]

I understand that they're never produced such a contract? To my knowledge the only times these 'parking companies' have won a case they've taken to court has been on occasions when the defendants have failed to turn up. And, a case even going to court is very rare.

An appeal involves the victim spending their valuable time, wheareas simply ignoring the 'invoices' (which are unenforcable) requires zero time/effort. Plus, while it's nice to know 60% of appeals succeed, that's nowhere near as good as the 100% success rate of just ignoring the 'invoices'.

 

As for fear- a moderate amount of research/reading will show that there can be no consequences to ignoring the invoice, so no need for fear/anxiety whatsoever.

 

 

I doubt the parking companies will last long enough for this appeals procedure to drive them out of business- now that programs like 'Watchdog' have, on several occasions, broadcast the information that all 'invoices' from private parking companies have no legal standing, fewer and fewer of the public will be paying them.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 19:29 ----------

 

 

Though the much easier method of simply ignoring unenforcable invoices is also totaly legal!

 

All Great points . I tend to be a magnet for these invoices ( more than likely due to the fact i tend to use car parks operated by these cowboys and i always usually overstay my ticket ) ,and ive always used the "Ignore" method, and its always worked for me. Ive have dozens of invoices plus the usual follow up junk mail from them , fake solicitors letters ,etc ,but ive never once received court papers. Its not like ive not given these jokers plenty of opportunities to take me to court , but they never do. IF ,and its a massive IF ,they did take me to court obviously id turn up .

[geared]

The POPLA appeal does sound like a good idea tho, if you win it basicly costs them 27 quid.

 

If you rack up as many invoices as you say you do then you can really costs these cowboys some money.

[Walkley Dave]

Costs them £27.00+VAT. If they lose and with a well-constructed appeal they usually do, then it is binding upon them and there is nothing more they can do. It is not binding on you!!

 

Remember if you appeal to them against the speculative invoice then they HAVE To give you a POPLA reference. And they have to send the Notice to Registered Keeper out in time, they have failed to do that with me incidentally.

 

And prove they have a contract (many PPC's seem reluctant to do this).

 

And prove it is a pre-estimate of loss.

 

Much better than ignoring. And the satisfaction of costing them money.

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2013 at 10:57 ----------

 

@Moosey.

 

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees This seems to indicate that the limit is now £100,000. (Though I agree a judge may allocate such a claim away from the Fast Trackt). Certainly I received a claim over £10,000 last year.

 

The insurance company paid.

[blade77]

It is very clear from my experiences, various forums, advice etc, there is a direct link between responding to these companies and the amount of follow up chasers you get.

 

Just thinking, if you appeal, you are also revealing 3 things:-

1. Your defense early, which may prompt them to hassle you more if they think you haven't got a reason that would stand up in court.

2. You are concerned and haven't really got a good reason.

3. You are admitting being the driver of the car! Very important, as according to Watchdog, "the driver of the vehicle is the only person who can enter into a contract with the landowner. ". If these parking companies don't know who the driver was, who do they take to court? The car owner hasn't entered into any contract. If fact, I have seen a court case where the judge says no contract was entered.

Watchdog source http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/parking_ticket_advice.shtml

 

 

Stuart

[truman]

It is very clear from my experiences, various forums, advice etc, there is a direct link between responding to these companies and the amount of follow up chasers you get.

 

Just thinking, if you appeal, you are also revealing 3 things:-

1. Your defense early, which may prompt them to hassle you more if they think you haven't got a reason that would stand up in court.

2. You are concerned and haven't really got a good reason. A

3. You are admitting being the driver of the car! Very important, as according to Watchdog, "the driver of the vehicle is the only person who can enter into a contract with the landowner. ". If these parking companies don't know who the driver was, who do they take to court? The car owner hasn't entered into any contract. If fact, I have seen a court case where the judge says no contract was entered.

Watchdog source http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/parking_ticket_advice.shtml

 

Stuart

 

"A new Law from 1st October 2012 changes liability for parking on private land from the driver of the vehicle to the vehicle’s registered keeper, unless the keeper clearly identifies who was driving the car at the time"

 

From here

 

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/legal--motoring-advice/2012-08/500000-more-private-parking-tickets-to-be-issued-next-year/

 

Muddies the water even more....

[Walkley Dave]

It is very clear from my experiences, various forums, advice etc, there is a direct link between responding to these companies and the amount of follow up chasers you get.

 

Just thinking, if you appeal, you are also revealing 3 things:-

1. Your defense early, which may prompt them to hassle you more if they think you haven't got a reason that would stand up in court.

2. You are concerned and haven't really got a good reason.

3. You are admitting being the driver of the car! Very important, as according to Watchdog, "the driver of the vehicle is the only person who can enter into a contract with the landowner. ". If these parking companies don't know who the driver was, who do they take to court? The car owner hasn't entered into any contract. If fact, I have seen a court case where the judge says no contract was entered.

Watchdog source http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/parking_ticket_advice.shtml

 

 

Stuart

 

That page has a disclaimer "This page has not been updated for a while"

 

That was probably the case until October 2012 as truman points out.

 

It is no longer the case.

 

So do me a favour and if you are going to post on the thread and give people advice - make sure it is up-to-date and you know what you are talking about.

 

As for this muddying the waters all you need to do is:

 

1. Ignore until the Notice To Keeper arrives. This itself has to be within certain dates.

 

2. Make a simple (also known as a "soft") appeal to the parking company, making sure you do NOT admit who was driving and making sure you ask for a POPLA reference if the appeal is to be turned down.

 

Check the speculative invoice carefully - there are lots of mistakes the private parking companies make. Use Parking Cowboys for this and add in some of the other defences that have worked. You can find them on Pepipoo too.

 

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk

 

They will have made some mistakes. Use these as grounds for appeal to POPLA

 

Check Pepipoo and if you can't work it out and ask on there.